Horms <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:37:49 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> This patch removes the foolish assumption that SMP implied local
>> apics. That assumption is not-true on the Voyager subarch. This
>> makes that dependency explicit, and allows the code to build.
>
> Doesn't only a small portion of the code in question rely
> on CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC? Is just a workaround until proper
> voager support materialises?
Essentially, but it is correct for the code to stay this way.
>> What gets disabled is just an optimization to get better crash
>> dumps so the support should work if there is a kernel that will
>> initialization on the voyager subarch under those harsh conditions.
>
> By that do you mean, a crash kernel that is able to boot even
> though the non-crashing CPUs have not been shutdown?
I simply mean a crash kernel that is able to boot.
>> Hopefully we can figure out how to initialize apics in init_IRQ
>> and remove the need to disable io_apics and this dependency.
>
> That does sound nice. Do you have any ideas on how that could be
> made to happen?
My patch for that got reverted because it wouldn't boot on Linus's
SMP laptop. It appeared to be some weird ACPI problem. I didn't
receive any bug reports otherwise.
So I suspect the steps are:
1) Unify SMP and non-SMP apic initialization so it is the exact same
code.
2) Move the unified code up in the boot sequence into init_IRQs.
It is something that needs to be done very delicately.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
